After considerable dread and anticipation, Santa Barbara City Administrator Jim Armstrong finally dropped the budget bomb on the City Council, leaving the mayor and councilmembers $8.9 million worth of painful choices to make. On the table for elimination are 41 positions — out of a total of 1,000 — many of which are currently vacant. But if Armstrong doesn’t get $2.6 million in wage and benefit concessions from the labor unions representing city workers, he warned another 17 positions would have to be axed. Should that happen, according to the quick-and-dirty PowerPoint presentation the councilmembers received, city residents would experience “dramatic service impacts.” Even with such concessions, it won’t be pretty. The Police Department will be forced to eliminate positions for seven sworn officers (currently vacant) and three non-sworn employees; the sober center will be closed, PAL, DARE, and beat coordinators will be history, and funding for school crossing guards could go up in smoke. That’s just for one department.
While details vary from city to city, the fiscal turbulence now afflicting Santa Barbara is tormenting every city, county, and vector control district in the state. In tourist-dependent Santa Barbara, revenues have dropped by nearly $10 million over the past two years while salaries and benefits have increased by $3.6 million. Sales tax revenues are down to 1999 levels. Bed tax revenues have posted modest increases over the past three months — after 16 months of decline — but they’re still roughly one-half of what they were two years ago. Last year, the City Council managed to bridge a $10-million shortfall without any involuntary lay-offs. This year, that feat may be much harder to accomplish.
Bargaining units are being asked to make major sacrifices. The supervisors association agreed to take a 10-percent cut in pay and benefits. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 620 has proposed a concession package, reportedly in the neighborhood of 8 percent. The firefighters union has yet to make any specific offer, and the Police Officers Association (POA) proposed a 5-percent cut in pay and benefits two weeks ago. That offer was rejected by Armstrong and the City Council. They’d asked for a 10-percent cut from public safety departments and 12 percent from the rest. Since then, however — with good news creeping around the economic edges — the real target has dropped closer to 8 percent. (Union chief Sgt. Mike McGrew insists that such numbers are not real, that Armstrong has privately said 5 percent was the target.) That the POA made any offer at all was historic.
Of all the city’s unions, the POA has been most skeptical that the city’s fiscal hole is as deep as Armstrong claimed and the most keenly suspicious Armstrong was hiding money while crying poor. For their part, administrators have been quick to blame the city’s escalating labor costs on the 25-percent pay increase the POA won at the bargaining table three years ago. That contract expires this June, and negotiations between POA — which endorsed the mayor and three of the current councilmembers — and City Hall have not been for the faint of heart.
When Armstrong told Chief Cam Sanchez to notify departmental employees who might be laid off that their jobs could be at risk, McGrew accused him of Al Qaeda-like bargaining tactics. (Other union leaders, like George Green of SEIU — which also endorsed the mayor and three of the councilmembers — have shied away from such language, saying such notices have become an unfortunate part of the budget picture.) When police brass went ahead with the notices, the POA’s attorney sent Armstrong a letter demanding that he cease and desist.
Sometime before June, negotiations between the two sides have to resume. Between now and then, countless public hearings will be held on proposed cuts and what impact they will have department by department.



Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace




Previous Month



Comments
Start with the traffic department. No more driver enraging devices, pedestrian/bicycle endangering devices, crumbling (already) brick sidewalks. This department exists primarily to ensure that the city spends money on things we don't need and to keep city construction workers and flaggers employed. Take it back to the staff of 2 it had 10 years ago - 80% reduction, minimum $1M direct savings in salary/benefits/pension plus who knows how much in spawned unnecessary indirect expense. Might also necessitate a reduction in other city departments, such as construction. Awwww..
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
April 22, 2010 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A couple of Republican Congressmen have suggested that poor people pay for their healthcare with chicken and vegtables...just like the good old days.
Throw in a few Santa Barbara Bucks and our poor city admin can pay for public services...just like the good old days...
sa1 (anonymous profile)
April 22, 2010 at 10:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
In good times everybody is a buddy and gets a pat on the back.
In bad times everybody is a jerk and gets a poke in the eye.
Lighten up, folks. Making other people wrong does not make money come faster.
Money is a means, not an end.
Money is a reward, a diploma, not a way of life, but a part of life.
Make money your god and it will plague you like the devil.
Do not let money get in the way of your prosperity.
Circumstances have nothing to do with my serenity.
Bird (anonymous profile)
April 23, 2010 at 12:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Actually, Bird, there were some people who recognized, even in "good times" that the unions' pet politicians were selling the taxpayer down the river. If money is a reward, the the State must be punishing the taxpayers while rewarding the greedy unions.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
April 23, 2010 at 7:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
dou4now (anonymous profile)
April 24, 2010 at 7:20 p.m.
The wealth producing goods and services sector is off due to "greed" at the top of our capitalist economics system i.e. wall street. I blame that on the previous Bush administration economic policies and it's lack of over-sight.
California State government worker's productivity is actually quite high especially compared to nearly all other states. City of Santa Barbara employees, especially departments such as police and transportation deserve every single penny and benefit they get for having to deal with the most conflicted on the public side of the speakers podium. Yeah we all have our disagreements with government but increasingly it is the public that is challenged.
Safe streets, clean creeks, fantastic parks, golf, youth programs, elderly programs, affordable housing, arts programs, festivals, bike paths, waterfront, harbor and pier, water, sewer, parking are just some of the services city employees provide. The city even coordinates and provides difficult social services that no other government agency will step up to provide. Yeah the numbers of employees may seem high and their pay and benefits may seem high but compared to what or where?
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
April 25, 2010 at 8:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How in the world would you know what CA government workers' productivity is? What is the measurement criteria? How can this be true when the state is considering outsourcing prisoners to other states (recent LA Times article) to avoid the high cost of imprisonment (i.e. CA prison guards union salaries/benefits?), And if productivity is so grand, why hasn't the state (or more to the point, the unions) published the data to justify the high salaries and benefits?
This sounds like total nonsense to me - clearly an attempt to justify the over-the-top salaries/benefits of the greedy union workers in CA's state government. Rather than make such a blanket proclamaion about the state workers, you should be asking the last question in your post about them as well as about county/local workers. Gotta wonder about your motivations here.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
April 25, 2010 at 11:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Don Mcdermott is right about Bush and the Republicans to a extent, of course to be fair our Democratic Congresswoman, State Government, Board of Supervisors and Progressive City Council increased spending like pigs at the trough also. Wonder why he didn't mention that also, guess he would rather support part of the problem rather than a solution by being partisan.
pointssouth (anonymous profile)
April 25, 2010 at 1:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Wonder why he didn't mention that also, guess he would rather support part of the problem rather than a solution by being partisan."
It's human nature playing out. People become so afraid of the other side that they won't improve what is wrong in their own camp.
To put it another way: If people would focus on creating better candidates for their political parties as opposed to simply beating the other side things would be much better.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2010 at 9:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)